Friday, June 08, 2012

In the first term of Bully Boy Bush, we had to hear attacks over and over on us, those who wouldn't drink his Kool-Aid, and how we must hate the country. We hated the country because we wouldn't support his wars or because we said his tax cuts were hurting the country or because we didn't support the hideous PATRIOT Act.

I didn't like it.

If you've missed it, many on my side have become pathetic jokes. Peter DeFazio's been a joke for some time.

A few years back, Suzanne Swift was harassed and survived command rape while serving in Iraq. On leave, she refused to go back to Iraq with the man who raped her. DeFazio talked so big for the reporters. Suzanne wouldn't be court-martialed, Suzanne would get support.

Then piece of crap Petey vanishes and is no support to Swift or her moth.

On Thursday night, during debate on a nonbinding motion to instruct
conferees by Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) where infrastructure spending in
2013 would be cut by about $17 billion, Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) had a
question: “Why do you hate the country so much?”

DeFazio should be ashamed of himself. In four years or eight when the GOP starts attacking us like that again remember that we brought it on by not having the maturity not to engage in it ourselves.

Friday,
June 8, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Brett McGurk's e-mails
finally makes the mainstream news, Brett McGurk's idiotic remarks to the
Senate Committee still don't (today we explores his lies to the
Committee on Sahwa), Nouri al-Maliki ensures that the political crisis
continues in Iraq, the US military finds an increase in the number of
suicides, and more.

Gina
Chon's not the story here. She may be at other sites and that's their
business. CJR should certainly be exploring the issue of sleeping with
your source. Here our focus is on McGurk except to point out that any
woman who has an affair with a married man who then leaves his wife
should be very wary of him being back in the same situation when he
first cheated with her. In other words, history tends to repeat.

What
changed? Why the sudden interest from the press in covering the
e-mails? Because reporters on the State Dept beat pressed State Dept
spokesperson Victoria Nuland about the e-mails.

QUESTION:
On another subject, this nomination of Brett McGurk, is it in trouble?
And can you confirm that the State Department is investigating
allegations of these emails between him and Ms. Chon of The Wall Street
Journal?

MS.
NULAND: Well, first of all, on the subject of the emails, they're out
there for everybody to see. I'm not going to get into emails between Mr.
McGurk and the woman who subsequently became his wife. With regard to
Mr. McGurk's nomination, I think you know that he spent the better part
of the last decade serving our country in and out of Iraq, working for a
Republican administration, a Democratic administration. He is, in our
view, uniquely qualified to serve as our ambassador, and we urge the
Senate to act quickly on his nomination.

QUESTION:
So obviously you're sticking with him. But can you confirm that --
because there are reports -- that the State Department actually has
looked into these alleged emails, or the allegations that these might
have compromised security or sensitive information?

MS. NULAND: I don't have anything to say on the emails.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION:
Because, I mean, there are rules for Foreign Service officers to not
get into situations where you're blackmailed. There's sort of a sense
that you have to act morally. There are these regulations in your
guidebooks. And some people have lost security clearances over having
extramarital affairs. So I wonder why it is that this doesn't seem to be
-- factor at all into your decision in keeping this -- keeping his
nomination out there.

MS.
NULAND: Again, we consider him uniquely qualified. All of the necessary
things were done before his nomination, and we urge the Senate to
confirm him. Jill.

QUESTION:
Can you confirm that those emails actually came from the State
Department system, in -- within the State Department system?

MS.
NULAND: I'm not going to speak about the emails. They're out there for
you to look at. They're obviously very much available for anybody to
read.

QUESTION: Aren't you investigating how they were leaked? They're from your own system.

MS. NULAND: I'm not going to get into our internal issues here.

QUESTION: Well, why not? You talk about WikiLeaks all the time. Those were essentially emails.

MS. NULAND: Goes to your usual point, Matt, that we speak about --

QUESTION: What, the lack of consistency?

MS. NULAND: Yes. (Laughter.)

QUESTION:
Yeah. Oh, okay, great. When -- you said you did -- all the necessary
things were done before his nomination. What are those necessary things?
Was that like a security clearance and vetting and --

MS. NULAND: All that stuff.

QUESTION:
Well, I mean -- no, I -- what are they? I don't know. What has to be
done, not just in his case but in any nominee's case?

MS. NULAND: His nomination was managed in the exact -- with the exact same processes that we use for everyone.

QUESTION: Well, okay. What does that mean? I mean, does that mean that there's an FBI check or --

MS. NULAND: I'm going to refer you to the White House for how they do this.

QUESTION: All right. And then --

QUESTION: Just one more on that.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION:
If you do -- if you did do that, are you sharing this with members of
Congress who have severe problems with his nomination?

MS. NULAND: We always work with Congress on our nominees, and we're continuing to do that in this case.

QUESTION:
Can you confirm that there has been at least one meeting with -- on the
specific issues, not on the specific issues that were about the emails,
with people on the Hill?

MS.
NULAND: I'm not going to comment on the specifics of our conversation
with Congress, but in all these nomination procedures, we work with the
Hill on any --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. NULAND: -- issues that they have as our --

QUESTION: But are you --

MS. NULAND: -- nominees are being reviewed.

QUESTION:
But are you aware that this -- that people from the State Department
have gone to the Hill and/or have spoken to members of the committee who
have raised concerns about these specific issues. And by these specific
issues, I don't mean the more specific substantive issues that senator
-- people like Senator McCain have raised. I'm talking specifically
about the emails. Do you know if they have been -- if this issue has
been discussed with people on the Hill?

MS.
NULAND: Beyond saying that we continue to work with appropriate members
and staff on his nomination in support of it, as we do with all
nominees, I'm not going to get into details.

"Matt" above is Matthew Lee with the Associated Press. He reports on it here
and avoids mentioning Gina Chon by name. While I have stated that she
is not the issue, I am not going to render her invisible. I have no
desire to include the name of the wife cheated on but while I'm not
going to examine Gina Chon's motives or explore ethical issues on her
end or quote her in the e-mails, I'm not going to vanish her. When you
enter into a sexual relationship with a high ranking government
employee, especially a married one, you're risking exposure. As a
member of the press, that's something Gina Chon understood before she
ever went to Iraq. I mention Lee vanishing her because that's another
reason the story's not being covered.

During
the Iran-Contra hearings -- a detail Robert Parry and others always
ignore -- a journalist was outed (TV journalist) for knowing about what
took place and covering it up. It was in the news cycle for about 2 to 3
hours. Then the press did what it does best: Protect its own. I've
mentioned the journalists' name before and will again. But we'll not go
there today because I'll hear, "Do you always have to beat up on ___?"
from friends at ____'s network.

But a big
reason that the e-mails weren't covered was due to the fact that Gina
Chon is a member of the press. As a result, I will be rethinking my
policy here for next week. We're already in a gray area because I'm not
big on sex scandals. (And my family has had their own aired out in the
press.) But we didn't cover this as "Cheating husband!" I wasn't even
aware Brett McGurk was married when I learned what the Senate Committee
was hearing. We covered this as: You want to be a surpervisor but you
used government time and government equipment to go in search of a
bootie call, you then concealed the affair from your supervisor because
it was a serious conflict and now you're going to supervise?

I'm
glad that McGurk doesn't have a sexaul harassment lawsuit against him,
but reading those e-mails -- which are only four years old -- I'm not
real sure he's someone who understands work boundaries.

And
with no supervisory experience, I do worry that the tone he will set
will not be encouraging for women or for their safety. "Oh come on,
boss," you can hear a male staffer telling McGurk, "I just sent her an
e-mail about my blue balls. You know what that's like, e-mailing a
woman about your blue balls. I wrote her about masturbating too because
I saw your e-mails and realized that's how someone 'so f**king smooth'
does it." Peter Van Buren notes today, "Readers of my book, We Meant Well,
will remember an incident where an innocent romantic email from a male
State Department contractor to a female soldier kicked off a major
incident that ended up with the contractor being swiftly fired for
misuse of the official email system for personal use. If McGurk is
allowed to end up as ambassador, that would be only the latest in a
long series of double standards of conduct at the State Department. "

This
is not a minor issue and how sad, telling and pathetic that neither
female senator on the Committee bothered to show for the hearing.

And
into this already complicated environment, the White House wants to put
a man who can't keep it in his pants? Married less than 2 years and he
can't keep it in his pants? In a war zone and he can't keep it in his
pants?

It's not a minor issue. Can an Iraqi
woman meet with McGurk? And if she does -- remember social taboos are
on the rise in Iraq since the US declared war and put thugs in charge --
will this result in it being assumed she too 'got down' with the
'playa'? You can not put a man with that reputation in Iraq without
asking, "How will this effect Iraqi women?" The most obvious way is
they won't be able to interact with him for fear of how any interaction
would be interpreted. So no Iraqi woman can meet with him one-on-one to
share concerns. That doesn't bother the State Dept?

Well
why the hell not. Iraqi women were sold out under Bully Boy Bush and
for all of his pretense otherwise, Barack Obama clearly doesn't give a
damn about Iraqi women.

I would think how
this effects over half of the Iraqi population would be of grave
concern; however, we've yet to see a White House concerned about Iraqi
women since the start of the illegal war.

Huffington Post does a lousy job of covering the story.
We're focusing on issues here. Can he be successful in management when
he has no experience and a record of lying to his superiors and
breaking rules and regulations? We're not being Arianna Huffington in
the 90s sniffing through Bill Clinton's briefs. Maybe that's the only
way Arianna and her website know to cover a story? Sink into the
filth? Or maybe it's just more of her: 'Write a bad blog post so we can
say we covered it and we aren't really in the tank for Barack.' Chris McGreal (Guardian) covers
the story seriously and raises real issues. I don't believe that
McGurk passed on classified information but -- as Mike noted last night
-- that is a serious concern around Congress currently for other
reasons. My issue is that he's not qualified. That was the opinion
before the e-mails. He doesn't have the exeprience needed, he doesn't
speak Arabic, Iraqiya objects to him, Iraqi women will be left out of
the discussions but now someone who just four years ago was breaking the
State Dept guidelines is going to be put in charge of the largest US
embassy project in the world?

Chris McGreal
explains, "A Republican senator, James Inhofe, cancelled a meeting with
McGurk in a sign that unease about the emails could raise problems. Any
senator is able to put a hold on the nomination." Helene Cooper (New York Times) adds,
"Mr. Inhofe has not yet put a hold on Mr. McGurk's nomination, an aide
said" and quotes the aide, Jared Young, stating, "I don't think we'd say
we've reached the decision point yet." Jared Young tells Aamer Madhani (USA Today), "Until those issues are cleared up, he will not meet with Mr. McGurk." In addition to the hiding of an affair, Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) notes
that McGurk "may have been videotaped while engaged in a sex act on the
roof of Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace with a different woman."
It's oral sex with him on the receiving end. And since March when Peter
Van Buren published a blind item, everyone has whispered that the blind
item about the blow job on top of the Republican Palace was one of
Brett McGurk's many sexual adventures in the Green Zone. Paul Richter has a good report for the Los Angeles Times.
Need a video report? As usual, you can count on Jake Tapper who is
able to confirm -- unlike all the other outlets today -- that the
e-mails are genuine. Click here for his video report.
Near the end, Jake Tapper explains, "And, George, even McGurk's allies
say now that with these e-mails out there, he will have to answer more
questions about this on Capitol Hill."

(If you covered this before 5:00 pm EST on Thursday and I didn't mention you, it was not intentional. E-mail common_ills@yahoo.com
and in Monday's snapshot we'll note you covered it before the American
mainstream media covered it. And that's true always for left sites and
center sites, but that applies to any right-winger as well. Drop an
e-mail with a link so we can include you so you get your credit. And if
you want some gossip, as I work in this link, Peter Van Buren is the
author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the War for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People,
Let me note that some at the State Dept are stating that Peter is
behind the leak. No, he wasn't. But there are many other stories
that will be leaked out if the State Dept and the White House continue
to target Peter. Their little witch hunt and demonization of Peter has
offended several career employees.)

[Personal
note. Since leaks are such a big deal, let me note I wasn't told by
anyone about the e-mails. I was present in the outer office when it was
being discussed in hushed tones. Anyone who knows me knows don't
whisper around me. If people talk at a normal volume, I'm busy, I'm
returning calls on my cell phones and I'm going through my planner. But
you start whispering and I hear it. You cannot get far enough away if
you're whispering. When you start whispering, you're right in my ear.]

In
the snapshots, we've been covering the interesting parts of Brett
McGurk's Wednesday testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
such as when he elected to school everyone on al Qaeda in Iraq -- and
directly contradicted Congressional testimony provided by Leon Panetta
(Secretary of Defense) and contradicted the public remarks of James
Clapper (Director of National Intelligence). The Committee just ignored
all the conflicts in his claims. Today we focus on Sahwa. Here's what
the nominee had to say.

Brett
McGurk: The Sons of Iraq is also something that we need to watch very
closely. So far, about 70,000 have been incorporated into government
positions. About 30,000 Sons of Iraq are still manning checkpoints.
They are getting paid out of the current budget -- I've been told out of
the current budget. They get paid about $300 a month which is slightly
below the per capita GDP.

In
his opening remarks, Petraues explained of the "Awakening" Council (aka
"Sons of Iraq," et al) that it was a good thing "there are now over
91,000 Sons of Iraq -- Shia as well as Sunni -- under contract to help
Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their neighborhoods and secure
infrastructure and roads. These volunteers have contributed
significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost
because of reduced violence -- not to mention the priceless lives saved
-- have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts." Again, the
US must fork over their lunch money, apparently, to avoid being beat
up.

How much lunch money is the US
forking over? Members of the "Awakening" Council are paid, by the US, a
minimum of $300 a month (US dollars). By Petraeus' figures that mean
the US is paying $27,300,000 a month. $27 million a month is going to
the "Awakening" Councils who, Petraeus brags, have led to "savings in
vehicles not lost".

Now
this was the week that Petreaus and Crocker went from House Committee
to Senate Committee to House Committee . . . Offering their testimony.

And
in one of the last smart things she may have done, Senator Barbara
Boxer raised the issue of why is the US taxpayer footing the bill for
Sahwa? She asked why Nouri wasn't paying the cost? This forced the
administration to insist that they would explore that. Had Boxer not
raised the issue, it never would have been raised. By the end of the
week, it was stated that the US was going to ask that Nouri pick up the
tab. This was at the height of Sahwa. Their number did not increase.
In fact their numbers decreased because they've been repeatedly targeted
with violence. In the year Petreaus testified, for example, 528 Sahwa died from attacks and another 828 were injured in attacks. Attacks haven't been their only problems. In January of this year, Dan Morse (Washington Post) reported:

The
United States transferred full management of the force to the Iraqi
government in 2009, with the understanding that 20 percent of the
fighters would be given jobs in Iraq's police or military units and that
the government would try to find the others civil service or
private-sector jobs.

But the process has
moved slowly. Sons of Iraq members say they are denied jobs because they
are Sunni, even as the Iraqi government welcomes onetime Shiite
insurgents into jobs. The government says that it is committed to hiring
Sons of Iraq members but that education levels prevent some of them
from getting security jobs.

After
its inception in 2005 they received salaries of around 250 dollars
monthly for manning checkpoints and patrolling their own areas. But
those low revenues have vanished today with the withdrawal of the
Americans. "The original plan was to gradually integrate our men
into the Iraqi security forces but now we're all starting to realise
that those were just fake promises," Abdullatif Majid Latif, commander
of the militia in Samarra, explains at the militia headquarters in the
city. "I have 2,000 men who have families to take care of in a
desperate situation. All of them still remain loyal to Sheikh Khalid
Fleieh but I wonder how long will this last," adds the military
official. Abdullatif's men belong to the approximately 100,000 today
lining up in the Sahwa militia. The first stage of an initially
ambitious plan was to incorporate a quarter of them into the security
forces. Today, things are not working as expected. Everyone wonders
what will happen to thousands of broken armed men. Samarra Sahwa
militiaman Abdulljabar Abdulrahim is categorical: "If I'm not paid in
April I'll quit and look for something else, either in the construction
or the cleaning sectors," he says, armed with an AK-47 rifle and dressed
in sweatpants and slippers.

How
do the above reports fit with the claims Brett McGurk made? They
don't. As usual he spun pretty for his friend Nouri. He didn't,
however, tell the truth to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On
the Clapper and Panetta issue, you could just write him off as dumb.
But the problems of Sahwa finding employment and getting paid have been
documented by the major newspapers since 2009. As of March of this
year, nothing changed. But Brett McGurk wants to insist otherwise.

70,000
have not been given government jobs. That's a bold face lie. The best
year on hiring was 2009. And about a tenth of that was hired in 2009.
In 2010 and 2011 you see the drop-off in hiring. 2009 was the best
year. McGurk's figures don't add up.

Maybe
if the Senators hadn't been so quick to rush through the hearing --
those that bothered to show up -- we'd know for sure whether Brett
McGurk was an idiot or a liar. But you don't give the testimony he did
-- as we've now documented in three snapshots -- unless you're
uninformed or lying.

When his
lack of experience in administration and supervision is brought up, the
White House insists to Senators that McGurk makes up for that with his
vast knowledge of Iraq. He didn't display vast knowledge, he displayed
highly limited knowledge.

He is not qualified and, if he was smart, he'd withdraw his nomination.

If
the administration were smart, they'd learn to give a damn about Iraqi
women. This is Barack third nomination for US Ambassador to Iraq. All
three have been men. If we're supposedly modeling behavior for Iraq,
we're not doing Iraqi women a bit of good. Stop kidding that these all
male appointments (and all male under Bush as well) help Iraqi women.

The
continued violence in Iraq helps no one but leaders who benefit from a
terrorized population. AFP's Prashant Rao Tweeted today:

AFP reports
a Baghdad attack on Col Mohammed Yunis' car left him dead and his wife
and their two children injured, Assad Mohammed was shot dead ("official
in the office of deputy parliament speaker Qusay al-Sohail), 1 Iraqi
soldier was shot dead in Kirkuk and a Baladruz roadside bombing claimed 1
life and left two people injured. Alsumaria reports
that the owner of a power generator center (electrical plant?) in
Diwaniyah was approached last night by angry citizens with one
throwing an unknown sharp object which killed him. The citizens were
upset by the continued lack of electricity.

In Iraq, the political crisis continues. If you're having trouble keeping track of who's who, Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) offers a look at the various political blocs.

Al Rafidayn reports
that Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq gave
a speech yesterday at the Cultural Forum insisting that while he has
defended the government he has also criticized it. In his speech
yesterday, Ammar declared that ISCI was not part of the problem but that
they wanted to be part of the solution and to support everyone. That
would be a change because all Ammar's supported so far this year was
Nouri.

Nouri is facing a no-confidence vote in Iraq. His refusal
to honor a signed contract between him and the political blocs has
ticked off many. The Al Rafidayn article notes that Daw's
Abdul Halim Zuhairi (Dawa is a political party -- Nouri's political
party; State of Law is Nouri's political slate) is insisting that
Moqtada al-Sadr is harming the nation and splitting the Shi'ite ranks.

Right there is your problem.

Moqtada al-Sadr is splitting Shi'ite ranks?

That's a sectarian way of looking at -- apparently the only way Dawa knows how.

You'd think the statements would be condemned. They won't be. But Alsumaria reports
Nouri did make a speech today insisting that tolerance was needed.
He's not punished anyone with Ministry of Interior for targeting and
demonizing Iraqi youth suspected of being Emo (the Ministry of Interoir
went into the schools trashing those children -- and the Interior has no
minister because Nouri won't nominate anyone -- he can only control
it when there is no minister).

Regardless of whether or not
there's a no-confidence vote, what has happened is that Iraqi leaders
have demonstrated they can go beyond sects and work together -- Moqtada,
KRG President Massoud Barzani, Iraqiya's Ayad Allawi and others.
They've presented a united front arguing that the Erbil Agreement needs
to be followed as agreed to.

The
Pentagon doesn't like to use the term "crisis," especially when
discussing the suicide rate of service members. But the situation
reached crisis level long ago. The latest news is even worse than
before. Mark Thompson (Time magazine) explains:

New Pentagon data show
U.S. troops are killing themselves at the rate of nearly one a day so
far in 2012, 18% above 2011′s corresponding toll. "The continual rise in
the suicide rate has frustrated all in the military," says Elspeth
"Cam" Ritchie, a retired Army colonel and chief psychiatric adviser to
the Army surgeon general. "The rise in the suicide rate continues
despite numerous recommendations from the Army and DoD task forces."

Suicides
among U.S. forces are on the rise this year. According to the Pentagon,
military suicides now are averaging nearly one per day; 154 active-duty
service members took their lives in the first 155 days of the year.
That's an 18 percent increase over the same period last year.Suicide
deaths also now are outpacing the number of U.S. combat troops killed
in Afghanistan. Some research has pointed to multiple tours of duty and
post-traumatic stress as contributing to the rise in suicides.

David Martin: Spc Carl McCoy survived two tours in Iraq only to take his own life and shatter the life of his wife Maggie.

Maggie McCoy: He shot himself. In the bathroom.

David Martin: Here in this house?

Maggie McCoy: Yes.

David
Martin: That was 2008, when the Army did not have enough mental health
counselors. McCoy had scheduled an appointment with a counselor at Fort
Campbell, Kentucky. But that morning --

Maggie McCoy: They called and cancelled.

David Martin: And they cancelled because?

Maggie McCoy: They didn't have anybody to see see him. That was the day before he killed himself.

Martin goes on to float the Pentagon's 'possible' reason for the increase: The economy.

Mollie (GetReligion.org) weighs in with,
"Suicides don't just mean that chaplains must arrange and perform
funeral services but also that they must deal with units that are
devastated. He said that one of the things they work on is doing
respectful funerals without glorifying the suicide victim since studies
(and his personal experience) indicate that it can lead to copycat
suicides or other problems. He mentioned another recent situation of
overseeing a funeral for an atheist who had left explicit instructions
about what could and could not be said at his service. Since what he
wanted said and not said wasn't exactly something that many — or any,
in this case — chaplains could get on board with, the chaplains at the
base came up with a creative workaround that honored the dead soldier's
wishes without compromising anyone else's religious views." AP has a video report
which includes Major General Dana Pittard writing on a blog: "Be an
adult, act like an adult, and deal with your real-life problems like the
rest of us." No, that's not helpful or needed and it's actually
damaging and keeps people from seeking the help that they neeed.

Robert Burns (AP) notes,
"The numbers reflect a military burdened with wartime demands from Iraq
and Afghanistan that have taken a greater toll than foreseen a decade
ago. The military also is struggling with increased sexual assaults,
alcohol abuse, domestic violence and other misbehaviour." David Martin
was oblivious to that apparently.

Thursday,
June 7, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's attempts to become
the Little Saddam catch attention, the moves towards a no-confidence
vote continues, we explore further Brett McGurk Iraq testimony to the
Senate -- testimony that contradicts Leon Panetta and James Clapper --
and more.

"At the very top of
my mind is the safety of all Americans serving in Iraq. I track this
extremely closely. Over the course of this year, we have had on average
zero to three attacks a week on the overall US presence. Almost
entirely 170 mm rockets from the Naqshbandia group which is the
rememnants of the Ba'athists Party. Fortunately, we've had no casualties
from those attacks," declared Brett McGurk testifying to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. Did the press rush to report
that the US was still under attack in Iraq? Nope. Senator Robest Casey
was the Acting Committee Chair at the hearing (filling in for Senator
John Kerry). We covered some of this yesterday. We'll cover some today and try to wrap it up tomorrow.

What
once had been labeled America's most important foreign policy issue,
what still is the world's largest embassy, what was a crusade that
killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands Iraqis, a failed
policy that is still sending waves through the volatile Middle East, is
now so unimportant that it is lopped together with the Maldives as
another bit of perfunctory business for the Senate to rap out before
summer recess.

Nobody cares anymore.

It really did seem that way in the hearing.

McGurk,
responding to questions by Senator Tom Udall, began discussing groups
in Iraq he saw as a problem. He started with al Qaeda in Iraq and this
was interesting. al Qaeda in Iraq (also known as al Qaeda in
Mesopotamia) was created by the Iraq War. Prior to 2003, there was no
al Qaeda presence in Iraq. It is largely homegrown.

Like
too many people, McGurk used "al Qaeda in Iraq" as a catch all for any
attack taking place in Iraq. This did not speak to an awareness. That
wasn't his biggest problem when discussing al Qaeda in Iraq.

McGurk
declared that they were striking at a similar rate in Iraq this year as
they had last year. That is remains a significant threat.

CIA
Director Leon Panetta: Senator, I have to tell you, there are a
thousand al Qaeda that are still in Iraq. We saw the attack that was
made just the other day. It too continues to be a fragile situation.
And I believe that uh we-we should take whatever steps are necessary to
make sure that we protect whatever progress we've made there.

It
was treated as big news in real time. Missy Ryan (Reuters) live
Tweeted the hearing and to her this was significant (more so than
anything else) resulting in many Tweets including the following:

So
by the summer of 2011, per the current Secretary of Defense, testifying
before Congress, there were less than 1,000 al Qaeda in Iraq . . . in
Iraq. That alone is troublesome considering McGurk's testimony.

Now
what about the fact that most observers have declared that the bulk of
the (small) al Qaeda in Iraq had gone on to Syria due to the turmoil
there? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reported in February of this year:

The
departure of al Qaida-affiliated fighters from Iraq to join the
rebellion against Syrian President Bashar Assad in Syria has had one
benefit, Iraqi officials say:

[. . .]

Iraqi
officials declined to provide precise figures for the drop-off or to
estimate how many al Qaida-affiliated fighters have left the country for
Syria. But the impact of the departure, they said, has been especially
apparent in Ninewah province, which borders Syria and has long been the
scene of some of al Qaida in Iraq's most violent bombings and
assassinations.

He
also asserted, "In terms of internal security and the Iraqis being able
to secure their country, they're not doing a bad job. Uh, they secure
the capital to host the Arab League Summit, they secured the capital to
host the P5+1 talks. That would have been unheard of three to five
years ago. So they're doing very good internal security."

That's
such a bold faced lie. Baghdad's never had a big problem with bombings
or shootings if they went into crackdown mode. Shortly after Nouri
first became prime minister, fighters almost breached the Green Zone.
What followed was Nouri's first crackdown.

So
doing the same for the summit and +1 was nothing. It's equally true
that it's a lie that Iraq did that. Take the Arab League Summit. When
US President Barack Obama goes somewhere he goes with his own security
detail. Do you really think that doesn't happen with other countries'
leaders as well? It does happen. And just as the Secret Service
preceeds a US president to any city days ahead of time to secure the
visit, the same thing happened there. Iraq got a ton of help from Arab
countries for the Summit and from the west and Iran for the P5+1.

In
the 2010 parliamentary elections, violence within Baghdad was very
minimal. And during the summit, there were mortar attacks on the Green
Zone.

Is McGurk unaware of that? Is he
unaware that any foreign leader has a security detail? He gave no
indication that he was. And the elected officials had no interest in
asking.

They had no interest in the 2008 Baghdad e-mails (we covered them in "Iraq snapshot" and "'Blue Balls' McGurk faces Senate Foreign Relations..." and "Iraq snapshot") which document McGurk -- who was married -- in a sexual relationship with Wall St. Journal
reporter Gina Chon -- a relationship he attempts to conceal from the
then-US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. Gina Chon is now the second
wife so will she be accompanying him to Iraq? I'll give her the same
advice I gave Elizabeth Edwards in 2002, "Put him on a leash, a very
short one." Just as Mr. Grabby Hands was notorious for coming on to
women and sleeping around, Chon should realize the man who cheated on
wife number one while he was in Iraq will likely repeat the act. I have
no interest in Chon's e-mail side of the conversation. But I will
offer that warning.

The
Committee also tended to avoid the issue that has gripped Iraq for over
a year now: the political crisis. Senator Lugar tip-toed up to it as
his first round of questioning was coming to a close.

Ranking
Member Richard Lugar: Let me ask, how are you going to advise Prime
Minister Maliki under the current circumstances in which where he's not
getting along well with the opposition to say the least and the Kurds
are drifting off by themselves? What are the challenges for our
diplomacy here?

Brett
McGurk: Thank you, Senator. It's a really critically, critically
important point. I have worked with Prime Minister Maliki for a number
of years and all the Iraqi leaders and I've worked with him in his
capacity as the prime minister. As I said in my written statement, I
would try to focus now on dealing with the Iraqis in an institutional
way. So dealing with Malliki as the prime minister now, if there was a
new prime minister tomorrow, I would have the same close working
relationship with him. I've worked with four Speakers of the
Parliament, for example. You need to focus on the institution. When
you're in Iraq and dealing with all sides, there are different
narratives to the political proces. The government that was put in
place in 2010, as you know, took eight months to put in place. When it
finally came together, it represents 98% of the Council of
Representatives.

Let's stop him for a
moment. What is "it"? He's referring to the Cabinet. The Council of
Representatives is the Parliament and he clearly doesn't see them as the
government. He sees the Cabinet as the government and is saying the
Cabinet represents 98% of the Parliament. He's referring to the various
blocs in the Parliament.

Brett
McGurk: They're represented in the Cabinet. That naturally leads to a
lot of inefficienies, a lot of rivalries, a lot of intrigue and that is
certainly going on now. Uhm, Maliki will say that his opposition
figures who are in his Cabinet won't share responsibility for
governing. The opposition figures say Maliki is consolidating power.
They're all right. And we need to work with all of them to live up to
their prior agreements and to work within the Constitutional system to
change the process. You mentioned the Kurds and this is critically
important and I would plan to visit the Kurdistan Region as much as
possible. I'd like to be up there, if I'm confirmed, at least once a
week because it's the personal interaction between the ambassador and
the Iraqi leaders that's so important for keeping everything stable and
for bridging areas of disagreement. The Kurds are having some
difficulties with the Baghdad government right now, the Baghdad
government's having difficulties with the Kurds. The real rivalry is
[KRG President] Massoud Barzani and Prime Minister Maliki. Uh, we have
to play an important role in mediating that effort. Uh, I would just
leave it at there's a Constitutional system in place now. This is the
third Iraqi government, the second Parliament, The Iraqis are going to
fight through their politics under the Constitutional rules they
themselves have devised. We cannot direct outcomes through that
process. When we try to do that, the unintended consequences are
quite enormous. But we can help bridge differences. We can mediate back
and forth and be constantly, actively engaged and that's what I intend
to do if I'm confirmed.

Well if Iraq
consisted solely of the Nouri and his supporters on the one hand and the
Kurds on the other hand, that answer might be a good one. Lugar didn't
notice and didn't care. He just gaped at McGurk in slack-jawed wonder,
making cow eyes at him.

Ahmad
al-Mesaree, a lawmaker with the Sunni-backed Iraqiya slate, told Radio
Free Iraq that McGurk's close ties with Maliki were cause for concern.

"His statements and political positions have not been neutral toward the political factions," he said.

Iraqiya leader Iyad Allawi lost to Maliki in the latest round of elections.

The
Iraqi Embassy in Washington told the news service, however, that
Baghdad had "no objection or reservation" to McGurk's nomination.

Oh,
yeah, Iraqiya. The political slate that won the most votes in the 2010
elections. The political slate that lodged an objection with DC when
McGurk was first nominated -- arguing that he was a tool/toy of Nouri's
and that he would not be fair to all factions in Iraq. His testimony
certainly placed a great deal of emphasis on Nouri but he did mention
the Kurds by name. The same was not true of others. Iraqiya's concerns
appear well founded.

Iraqiya has become the Cassandra of Iraq, in fact.

For
eight months following the 2010 elections, Nouri caused Political
Stalemate I. He wanted a second term as prime minister; however, his
State of Law had come in second to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya. The
Constitution outlined what was supposed to happen and it most likely
would have been followed if Nouri didn't have the support of both Tehran
and the White House. The US government would pretend to be an honest
broker and arrange the Erbil Agreement. This contract would give Nouri
his second term and he would have to make various concessions to Iraq's
other political blocs.

Nouri was named
prime-minister designate the next day and immediately refused to
implement the creation of an independent security council (among other
things). In protest, Ayad Allawi walked out with many other members of
Iraqiya. He was told, by the US, that he wasn't giving Nouri time and
that of course the Erbil Agreement -- a signed contract! -- would be
honored. So he returned to the Parliament.

Nouri
used the Erbil Agreement to get a second term and then refused to
follow it. Iraqiya should have listened to their own instincts and
grasped that the US government didn't give a s**t about anyone in Iraq
except for Nouri al-Maliki.

It's a lesson that
the Kurds learned. As December 2010 drew to a close, Nouri failed to
name a full cabinet. The security ministries, for example, were
vacant. He refused to name a Minister of Interior, a Minister of
Defense or a Minister of National Security. With heavy spin from the US
State Dept, the press ran stories telling people that it would be a
matter of weeks before Nouri made those nominations. (Per the
Constitution, he should have been stripped of the title prime
minister-designate and it should have been awarded to someone else and
they would have had 30 days to form a cabinet.) While the US government
lies were being circulated, Iraqiya declared that Nouri had no
intention of naming anyone to those posts. Nouri would keep them vacant
because controlling the security ministries would help him become
Little Saddam all the quicker.

The Erbil
Agreement has still not been implemented. Nouri is threatened with a
no-confidence vote over that and knows all he has to do is implement it
to stop the vote. He refuses to implement the contract he signed.
Iraqiya was right. The press said, in December 2010, that it would be
only a matter of weeks before Nouri named ministers to head the security
ministries. Wrong. Still vacant. He will not send anyone to
Parliament as a nominee because once Parliament votes them into the
post, Nouri can't remove them without Parliament's approval. So
instead, he finds stooges and calls them "acting ministers" -- despite
the fact that there is no recognition of such a post in the
Constitution.

During
a presentation at the National Defense University in May, British
scholar Toby Dodge described Maliki as "muscular" and as "a grey
functionary," a man who has long known he has many enemies and now has
moved to consolidate power both brutally and efficiently. The prime
minister, Dodge said, is "consolidating an authoritarian regime, the
ramifications of which are rather stark" and he urged the United States
to "adopt a policy to combat this rising dictator." He has gone from the
last man standing to a direct and profound threat to any remnants of
Iraqi democracy."

Maliki began by
targeting the military, the courts, and the ministries. As the U.S.
military, in particular the U.S. Special Forces, transferred
responsibility to their Iraqi counterparts, Maliki created several
special brigades within the army as counter-terrorism brigades and moved
them out of the defense ministry to report directly to him. The office
of commander-in-chief was moved to the prime minister's office and
staffed with friends loyal to him. He then consolidated the police and
army into one office under one general in order to control all security
functions. His special operations forces, which Iraqis refer to as Fedayeen al-Maliki, a term reminiscent of Saddam's infamous fedayeen Saddam, number approximately 4,200 and are under his direct control.

Dodge
and others note that by retaining the title and role of defense and
interior minister, moving special security units out of the defense
ministry, streamlining the military hierarchy, and controlling
high-ranking appointments, Maliki has circumvented the military chain of
command and, in effect, coup proofed the military. He has also moved to
tighten control over the intelligence and security services. As in
Saddam's time, Iraq now has six separate intelligence services
overseeing each other and everyone else. According to Dodge's figures,
933,000 people are employed in the Iraqi Security Forces, an estimated 8
percent of the Iraqi workforce and twelve percent of the male
population. Other sources describe Maliki as targeting midlevel
intelligence-officers to drive them out if they are seen as threats to
him. The effect has been to undermine the coherence of the chain of
command and fracture the ability to produce and utilize actionable
intelligence. Shiite security forces masquerading as militias maintained
secret prisons, conducted kidnappings and targeted killings with
apparent impunity. Dodge estimates that given Maliki's control over
special security, intelligence, police, and prisons, no one in Iraq's
growing security apparat would dare challenge him. Dodge is almost
certainly correct.

Nouri
doesn't appear troubled by the crisis and one reason for that calm may
be that he has some sort of promise from the US government? Alsumaria notes
that Kurdistan Alliance head Mahmoud Othman is declaring the US
government does not want Nouri removed from his post and think the
crisis can be dealt with by a simple slap on the wrist (censure). Dar Addustour reports
State of Law is still stating the the US will save Nouri al-Maliki,
that they have Barack Obama's backing and that the White House will stop
the proposed no-confidence vote (in the Iraqi Parliament) against
Nouri. Supposedly, the White House is preparing a message that will
convince enough -- if not all -- members of Parliament that Nouri should
stay in his position.

If the White House does do that, it's not
surprising. But possibly they could answer at what point they intend to
allow democracy to take place? It wasn't when the Iraqi people voted.
They made clear Nouri was not their first choice. But the White House
didn't give a damn about who the Iraqis wanted as their leader. Iraqis
risked a great deal to vote. And voting wasn't just going to their
precent. Voting, in Baghdad, meant traveling to a second or a third or a
fourth polling place. And this while checkpoints and bans are in
place. It was very difficult for them to vote. But they voted. And
the US refused to honor that vote. The US insisted that Nouri must
remain prime minister.

Ask
Iraq's Sunni, Kurdish and even some Shiite leaders these days what they
think of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, and the rhetoric is likely to
be shrill: Many call him a dictator, autocrat or even a new "Saddam" who
needs to be voted from office.For the second time since
American troops left last December, Maliki is wading through a crisis
with the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish blocs in his government at each
others throats in a feud that risks spilling from politics into
sectarian violence.

Al Mada reports
that the Sadr bloc says they are still supporting the no-confidence
vote and standing with Iraqiya and the Kurdistan Alliance. They call
for reforms and say -- noting Nouri's history -- that they don't rule
out last minute surprises popping up. I'm having computer issues on this
end, sorry for the long delay. We'll cover Othman and no-confidence
vote in the snapshot and just get this up before I have to reboot again.

In other news of violence, a spokesperson of the Ministry of Justice announces to Alsumaria that Abed Hamid Hmoud was hanged today. Hmoud was the former secretary of Saddam Hussein. AP adds,
"As Saddam's presidential secretary, Hmoud controlled access to the
Iraqi president and was one of the few people he is said to have trusted
completely, U.S. officials said in 2003." No one will speak of the
crimes or the trial on the record. But though it appears he was not
accused of killing anyone himself, he was put to death for "persecution"
of others.

This wasn't justice, this was the settling of old scores.

In
tomorrow's snapshot, I hope to work in suicides and Sahwa among other
topics. For now we'll wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's
office. Senator Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, June 7, 2012

CONTACT: Murray Press Office

(202) 224-2834

VETERANS: Murray Commends VA for Focus on Reproductive Injuries

Murray: VA must continue to work to enhance fertility treatment services for severely wounded veterans

(Washington,
D.C.) – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee sent a letter to Secretary of
Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki to commend the Department's addition
of coverage for reproductive and urinary tract injuries to the
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury Protection
Program. The nature of the current conflict and increasing use of
improvised explosive devices leaves servicemembers far more susceptible
to blast injuries that affect these systems. Army data shows that
between 2003 and 2011 more than 600 servicemembers from OEF/OIF/OND
suffered these life-changing battle injuries.

"It
is vital our veterans and their families receive benefits and services
that allow them to fulfill their life goals, such as attending college
or having a child," said Senator Murray. "I look forward to working with
VA to make sure veterans get the support they need."

The full text of the letter follows:

June 6, 2012

Honorable Eric K. Shinseki

Secretary of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20420

Dear Secretary Shinseki:

I
write to commend the Department's recent focus on reproductive and
urinary tract injuries in the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
Traumatic Injury Protection Program. The nature of the current conflict
and increasing use of improvised explosive devices leaves servicemembers
far more susceptible to blast injuries that cause this type of trauma.
This is an area that has been of increasing concern to me as these
injured servicemembers attempt to move forward with their lives.

Recent
Army data shows that between 2003 and 2011 more than 600 servicemembers
from the current conflicts suffered reproductive and urinary tract
battle injuries. As these servicemembers readjust to civilian life and
eventually get ready to start their own family, they find VA's fertility
services do not meet their complex needs. While VA's fertility services
provide limited assistance to the veteran with reproductive and urinary
tract trauma, there is no coverage for their spouse.

I
know that you share my belief that it is critical that veterans and
their families receive benefits and services that allow them to fulfill
as many of their goals as practicable, whether they include attending
college or having a child.

I look forward to our continued work is this area to support our Nation's veterans and their families.